Thread: Utter Elation followed by disillusionment and annoyance!!

Hi Everyone, I've taken out one of those trials with A******y and a chap who I was in contact with about 3 years ago (we share a GtGtGtGrandmother) was doing sterling work creating his family tree which, pre-the GtGtGtGrandmother, we share. I found the tree again and was amazed to see that he's amassed 102,000 names on it!! Seems our roots are connected to virtually every Royal house in Europe, including Alfred the great, Duncan I of Scotland, Charlemagne, some Tudors as well. Now I hate to cast aspersions, but this all seemed great when i first read through it, but on reading CLOSER, some of the dates just cannot tie up, or names of some children of nobility. It's annoying me... What do you think? I've learned that in the Aristocratic world, it appears that NOT all the children in any one family have the same name, but are known as eg. Bedford (earl of Bedford) rather than his REAL name.

Tell me what ya think please,

A thoroughly hacked-off

M
x

Hi,
I just smile when I read through those trees. Some that are based on fact(diaries/ bibles/old family papers with births and deaths detailed) may be as near truth as is possible to get. Some even have times of births, the exact day etc. but some, when closely examined, prove impossible.
102,000 names isn't family research. It's simply copying down lists of names. After 1837 one has the bonus of certificates and later, censuses, and before that parish records and such provide proof but many parish records have been lost or damaged. Some of those trees that date back to 900 seemed flawed in many cases.
Take it all with a pinch of salt and just enjoy your own valid research.

Originally Posted by Lola5

Hi,
I just smile when I read through those trees. Some that are based on fact(diaries/ bibles/old family papers with births and deaths detailed) may be as near truth as is possible to get. Some even have times of births, the exact day etc. but some, when closely examined, prove impossible.
102,000 names isn't family research. It's simply copying down lists of names. After 1837 one has the bonus of certificates and later, censuses, and before that parish records and such provide proof but many parish records have been lost or damaged. Some of those trees that date back to 900 seemed flawed in many cases.
Take it all with a pinch of salt and just enjoy your own valid research.

Hi Lola...Cah...bit of a b****r though... as I said I was quite excited to start with!! If it is indeed 'lists of names copied', then that surprises me greatly. The tree owner's profile is fairly impressive, quite academic type of chap, so WHAT would he gain if it IS all just lists?? Beats me. ANNOYS me too...

M
x

Thanks for your answer..

No , I didn't mean ALL is just lists!
Some is very well researched and, as you so rightly point out, by well-respected genealogists but if you look closely some say mother ... either/or... and a mother cannot be either /or. She must be a positively identifiable by name . And some of them seem to reproduce well into their fifties. Most women didn't live till 50 yrs of age.And too many men seemed to die over the age of 100!!
I have a tree branch going back to 1500's and even some of that seems(to me) doubtful so I'm trying to go back bit by bit to check it all.... a hopeless task!
With royalty births / deaths and marriages etc were/are very carefully recorded but with lesser mortals how can one be so sure?
Don't let it get you down though.

Hi Morgana

Just to confirm what you have learned about aristocracy and their names, it was (and still is) quite normal for people to be referred to by title "as a name" rather than by their actual name. Thus John Smith who is the Earl (or Duke, Baron etc.) of Someplace would be also known as 'Lord Someplace', 'John Someplace' or just 'Someplace'.

An actual example is Prince Charles - one of his titles is the Duke of Cornwall but his name is Charles Windsor (he wouldn't be registered/baptised as Charles Cornwall). And his brother, though his title was the Duke of York, would still have the same surname of Windsor.

Therefore it's quite possible for siblings to have different titles, if their parents have enough titles to bestow on their children individually. However their actual surname would always remain the same.

To answer to your question, why don't you contact him again to ask about his sources? I had an ancestor I had been researching for ages, only to find her on someone else's tree. I contacted the lady to ask about her source and she replied that it was just a 'hint that popped up' and she had taken it as gospel. Needless to say I'm still searching! Your contact may have diligently researched everything, in which case you needn't reinvent the wheel. But equally, if you suspect some of his names and dates are impossible, it might be a load of old tosh.

You'll never rest until you know.

Have fun!
Pam

Hi Pam,
Thanks for your reply. Yeah - I have sent him a message, not yet answered. As I already mentioned, the gentleman involved appears to have been rather a professional type, a 'researcher' is mentioned in his profile, as well as being a PhD / Post Doctoral, so I can't help but think he was more thorough than we think, and maybe made a mistake with some of the dates. Oh well, life can be hard....

M

Originally Posted by poleta

Hi Morgana

Just to confirm what you have learned about aristocracy and their names, it was (and still is) quite normal for people to be referred to by title "as a name" rather than by their actual name. Thus John Smith who is the Earl (or Duke, Baron etc.) of Someplace would be also known as 'Lord Someplace', 'John Someplace' or just 'Someplace'.

An actual example is Prince Charles - one of his titles is the Duke of Cornwall but his name is Charles Windsor (he wouldn't be registered/baptised as Charles Cornwall). And his brother, though his title was the Duke of York, would still have the same surname of Windsor.

Therefore it's quite possible for siblings to have different titles, if their parents have enough titles to bestow on their children individually. However their actual surname would always remain the same.

To answer to your question, why don't you contact him again to ask about his sources? I had an ancestor I had been researching for ages, only to find her on someone else's tree. I contacted the lady to ask about her source and she replied that it was just a 'hint that popped up' and she had taken it as gospel. Needless to say I'm still searching! Your contact may have diligently researched everything, in which case you needn't reinvent the wheel. But equally, if you suspect some of his names and dates are impossible, it might be a load of old tosh.

You'll never rest until you know.

Have fun!
Pam

Was just reading through your comments. I agree Pejay. about the copying of names
I have been researching my Family Tree for ten years. In that time I have had Irate messages telling me
that some of my Information was wrong. I could beg to differ has I had Family Bible, Old Certificates,etc.
The final straw was being informed that My Own Parents date of Birth. Place of Birth, Marriage date and date of
Eldest Daughter were all wrong. I just threw up my hands and carried on. I never copy hints on Ancestry
unless I check carefully myself. That should be the Golden Rule for all Researchers.

I also enjoyed reading this thread - on my trail of research ive seen some strange places some of my ancestors were born concerning some trees . Although my tree isnt on line im always willing to help any one researching our family line with proof of what i have , mistakes are easy to make as you all say you need to see records , i could suddenly go back to 1500 but im stuck on 1700 as so far no proof have i found myself . My research has taken me years the internet can help yes at times- but we still have to see documents - this will one day be passed down and hopefully another will continue, as far as im concerned too im still a novice .